Wright Way: A Star Over Bethlehem?

[Shawnster]

WRIGHT WAY: A star over Bethlehem?

by WILLIAM WRIGHT

 

 

 

 

The star of Bethlehem has been called everything from one of the most powerful symbols of Christianity to a myth and legend manufactured by the early church. Nothing like it has ever been recorded in the annals of history.

Read more: Cleveland Daily Banner - WRIGHT WAY A star from the East 

[CHecker]

Very, very good. Well written.

[Mybrick]

Hey looks like a brother got a shot in. Good for him. Excellent witness. I see his article has had over 13,000 views with 202 thumbs up. I'm hopeful there will be more people who visit jw.org to find answers to their questions now.

[niall]

This is exactly the way I explained it to my family. Plus, many people believe the Star was actually Jupiter. Interestingly, Jupiter is the planet that represents Nimrod (the builder of Babylon). Myth has it that, after Nimrod died, he would return annually in the form of an evergreen tree. This tree mysteriously had gifts under it. And, it occurred on the 25th of December. (Or something like that - I'm on a break at work and don't have the time to check exact details).

So, it's interesting that it all leads back to the one man who started the first organised revolt against Jehovah.

Josephus says that Nimrod hated God and swore vengeance against him. That's why he built the tower of Babel — reasoning that it would be high above the flood waters should God decide to destroy them all again.

It makes me sick to see those, who claim to be Christian, promoting this pagan festival.

[niall]

Now I have a little bit of time, I googled the following:

> Nimrod (who eventually came to be worshipped as Baal) – According to ancient Babylonian tradition, Semiramis (later known as the goddess Astarte/Asherah/Ashtoreth/Isis/Ishtar/Easter in other pagan religions) claimed that after the untimely death of her son/husband Nimrod, a full grown evergreen tree sprang up overnight from a dead tree stump. Semiramis claimed that Nimrod would visit that evergreen tree and leave gifts each year on the anniversary of his birth, which just happened to be on December 25th.

And this from the Insight Volumes:

> Wrote Josephus: “[Nimrod] little by little transformed the state of affairs into a tyranny, holding that the only way to detach men from the fear of God was by making them continuously dependent upon his own power. He threatened to have his revenge on God if He wished to inundate the earth again; for he would build a tower higher than the water could reach and avenge the destruction of their forefathers. The people were eager to follow this advice of [Nimrod], deeming it slavery to submit to God; so they set out to build the tower . . . and it rose with a speed beyond all expectation.”​—Jewish Antiquities, I, 114, 115 (iv, 2, 3).

Edited December 25, 2014 by niall

[feather]

 

  this brother always does an excellent job of remaining neutral in his writings,

   -- even in his Ferguson article--

   yet directing attention to the inspired record,

  quoting scriptures, and stating the Kingdom

    is the only real solution for perfect justice.

[A fellow servant]

Thanks for sharing Shawnster.      

[carlos]

> Nimrod (who eventually came to be worshipped as Baal) – According to ancient Babylonian tradition, Semiramis (later known as the goddess Astarte/Asherah/Ashtoreth/Isis/Ishtar/Easter in other pagan religions) claimed that after the untimely death of her son/husband Nimrod, a full grown evergreen tree sprang up overnight from a dead tree stump. Semiramis claimed that Nimrod would visit that evergreen tree and leave gifts each year on the anniversary of his birth, which just happened to be on December 25th.

 

Niall, I have heard many times of those connections between Nimrod and many aspects of false religion, especially from brothers who are in the Truth for many years, but I think most of that information comes from the Alexander Hislop's book "The Two Babylons". In the past we used to quote that book quite a lot, but it hasn't been quoted in our publications in several decades, because it is not clear how much of the information were just Hislop's personal reflections. Besides, the author's overt intention was to bash and expose the Catholic church, rather than doing an accurate research.

 

It's very tempting to trace all or most false religious practices to Nimrod and Babel, and surely a good bunch of them come from there, but I am not sure any of that information can be confirmed.

[niall]

Niall, I have heard many times of those connections between Nimrod and many aspects of false religion, especially from brothers who are in the Truth for many years, but I think most of that information comes from the Alexander Hislop's book "The Two Babylons". In the past we used to quote that book quite a lot, but it hasn't been quoted in our publications in several decades, because it is not clear how much of the information were just Hislop's personal reflections. Besides, the author's overt intention was to bash and expose the Catholic church, rather than doing an accurate research.

It's very tempting to trace all or most false religious practices to Nimrod and Babel, and surely a good bunch of them come from there, but I am not sure any of that information can be confirmed.

OK, thanks for the info. I found the information (about Nimrod and the presents under the evergreen tree) on quite a few sites, including Wikipedia. Obviously those stories are always made up anyway, but I never thought it was such a recent invention.

[carlos]

OK, thanks for the info. I found the information (about Nimrod and the presents under the evergreen tree) on quite a few sites, including Wikipedia. Obviously those stories are always made up anyway, but I never thought it was such a recent invention.

 

I was especially curious about the character of Semiramis, since the Bible makes a brief mention of Nimrod, but says nothing about her. Some sites that repeat those legends about Semiramis being Nimrod's wife and Tammuz' mother, and being the same as Ishtar, Easter and Astoreth, claim that her story comes from the respected historian Eusebius.

 

So I was having a look at Eusebius' "Chronicles" looking for all occurrences of the name "Semiramis" and what I found is in no way supporting those stories. Eusebius quotes several ancient writers regarding the early kings of Assyria, and several of them mention Semiramis as being the wife of Ninus, the legendary first Assyrian ruler. After Ninus died, the legends go, she continued to be queen over the Assyrians for many years, 42 according to some sources, 62 according to others. Eusebius just quotes those different records and points to the contradictions between them. I have found no reference in Eusebius that links her to Nimrod, it was Josephus, many centuries later, who made a mess of all of this and identified Ninus with Nimrod. But he was committing a huge anachronism, since that Semiramis, if she really existed, lived in the 9th or 8th centuries, many centuries after the Biblical Nimrod.

 

So I would treat any stories about Nimrod and Semiramis cum grano salis. It's very likely that they are completely false.

 

On the other hand, there seems to be some value to the possibility that the Babylonian god Marduk is Nimrod deified. From a linguistics viewpoint, "Marduk" might be a derived form of the name Nimrod, both containing the root m-r-d.

[GStorrs46]

Shawn,

 

   Is this reporter a brother, or just an insightful journalist ? At any rate his logic and presentation are impeccable. Thanks

for sharing it.

 

                                                                                                                                                           GStorrs46

[AH173]

His articles share the good news of truth. No Christendom influences I've seen in any of his articles at the Cleveland banner. ☺

[feather]

He is our brother.

  long time good friends with a couple in our cong

[AH173]

He is our brother.

  long time good friends with a couple in our cong

Thanks Renee. Do you think he knows of this website? ☺

[feather]

 good idea

 

   Ashley send him an email link 

[AH173]

OK, will try. ☺

[Shawnster]

 

 

It's very tempting to trace all or most false religious practices to Nimrod and Babel, and surely a good bunch of them come from there, but I am not sure any of that information can be confirmed.

 

*** sh chap. 2 pp. 39-40 pars. 40-41 Religion—How Did It Begin? ***

40 Is this composite picture purely the result of someone’s mental exercise? No. Basically, that is the picture presented in the Bible, in the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis. While we will not go into a discussion of the authenticity of the Bible here, let it be noted that the Bible’s account of man’s early history is reflected in the key elements found in many legends. The record reveals that as the human race began to disperse from Mesopotamia, they carried with them their memories, experiences, and ideas everywhere they went. In time these were elaborated and changed and became the warp and woof of religion in every part of the world. In other words, going back to the analogy used earlier, the account in Genesis constitutes the original, crystal-clear pool from which stemmed the basic ideas about the beginning of man and worship found in the various religions of the world. To these they added their particular doctrines and practices, but the link is unmistakable.

 

41 In the following chapters of this book, we will discuss in greater detail how specific religions began and developed. You will find it enlightening to note not only how each religion is different from the others but also how it is similar to them. You will also be able to note how each religion fits into the time scheme of human history and the history of religion, how its sacred book or writings relate to the others, how its founder or leader was influenced by other religious ideas, and how it has influenced mankind’s conduct and history. Studying mankind’s long search for God with these points in mind will help you to see more clearly the truth about religion and religious teachings.

[carlos]

 

*** sh chap. 2 pp. 39-40 pars. 40-41 Religion—How Did It Begin? ***

40 Is this composite picture purely the result of someone’s mental exercise? No. Basically, that is the picture presented in the Bible, in the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis. While we will not go into a discussion of the authenticity of the Bible here, let it be noted that the Bible’s account of man’s early history is reflected in the key elements found in many legends. The record reveals that as the human race began to disperse from Mesopotamia, they carried with them their memories, experiences, and ideas everywhere they went. In time these were elaborated and changed and became the warp and woof of religion in every part of the world. In other words, going back to the analogy used earlier, the account in Genesis constitutes the original, crystal-clear pool from which stemmed the basic ideas about the beginning of man and worship found in the various religions of the world. To these they added their particular doctrines and practices, but the link is unmistakable.

 

Shawn, probably I didn't express myself correctly. It's perfectly clear that false religion originated in ancient Babel and many of its beliefs and practices come from there. I am not challenging that.

 

My post above dealt with the often repeated statements about Nimrod and Semiramis and the origins of the Christmas tree and the Mother of God myth and many others based on Hislop's work "The Two Babylons". Our publications often repeated those explanations in the past, but they don't do any more because they lack any serious base, contain many gross mistakes and simply have been outdated.

Edited December 28, 2014 by cvillarrubia

[carlos]

A brother has sent me a PM regarding my posts above and how does that viewpoint affect our understanding of the pagan origins of Christmas, since it was Alexander Hislop's work "The Two Babylons" what helped the brothers realize in 1928 that Christmas is a pagan celebration. In view that Niall and others have also shown interest in this question, I thought I would better answer here. Thank you, Mike!

 

Actually I can't say I have done much research, just some basic reading, and I am open to any information that can change my view.   Since I was a child I was taught by my father about Nimrod and the origin of the Christmas fir and many other connections to Catholic rites and beliefs.

 

Those explanations are repeated ad nauseam in all kinds of Evangelical publications, but when you dig a bit more trying to find out their source, they invariably come from Hislop's "The Two Babylons". However, that is a very old book, isn't it strange that no other researcher has confirmed his conclusions since the 19th century? When you read a bit more about Alexander Hislop it becomes clear he was not a scholar nor a researcher, he was just a Protestant minister who had a strong aversion towards the Catholic church.

 

When reading "The Two Babylons" I couldn't help noticing the author makes a lot of solemn statements but rarely backs up his claims with reliable references. Absolute statements usually raise a red flag in my mind. Since he begins his dissertation calling upon the authority of Eusebius to establish that Semiramis was Nimrod's wife and lived shortly after the Flood, I just went to the source and searched all occurrences of Semiramis in Eusebius, with the results I mentioned before. He also makes some big mistakes (as sending Semiramis one thousand years in the past) which are easy to overlook if you just trust his word and don't check the sources.

 

A quick search in the Watchtower Library shows that quotations from Hislop were quite common during the 60s and 70s. The last mention of "The Two Babylons" in The Watchtower is from 1978, and in Awake! from 1986, although that last quotation is more cautious. Afterwards that book has never been quoted again for nearly thirty years, which seems quite significative.

 

Our organization has always tried to find the truth but at some times in the past we have lacked critical judgment. When we humans hear a story that agrees with our beliefs, we tend to accept it without questioning it much. Our publications have occasionally fallen in that trap and repeated stories that were untrue, because they seemed too good to be false (remember Gandhi and the Sermon of the Mount!). In recent decades, however, the Slave has been very careful to check everything they quote is true and can be confirmed. And Hislop's work doesn't seem to be in their OK list.

 

How does this affect our view on the pagan origins of Christmas? It doesn't affect it at all. If "The Two Babylons" opened the brothers' eyes regarding Christmas, blessed be Jehovah. But we don't need that book at all to notice the pagan elements of Christmas today. I haven't found any ancient source to back the claim that December 25 was Tammuz' birthday, but we do know Romans held their very pagan Saturnalia in those same dates, and the celebration included big banquets, eating and drinking in excess, and exchanging gifts, the same features that characterize the celebration of Christmas today.

 

One can't but wonder what does a decorated fir have to do with Jesus' birth. I often ask that question when somebody asks me about Christmas. Since the Christmas tree is not mentioned at all in the Bible, it must be a pagan tradition. The 2011 Awake! article about the pagan origins of the Christmas tree didn't make any mention to Nimrod nor Tammuz, although that would have been a perfect occasion for it, and rather explored the Scandinavian origins of that custom.

 

So, although I reckon that many rituals and beliefs ultimately come from ancient Babylon, I am extremely cautious towards any statements about the connections between Nimrod and Semiramis and a specific false religious practice. Anyway, I am open to any additional information!

Edited December 28, 2014 by cvillarrubia

[GStorrs46]

Carlos,

 

  I appreciate your research and the run down of the last times Hislop has been quoted. Since we came into the truth in

the late 60s and early 70s. This was a time when this line of thinking was very popular. In fact I remember a experience

in the Awake ! about a missionary who wrote home to her mother about why they had decided not to celebrate Christ-

mas. Among other things she quoted that information from Hislop.

  I have read the original article in the Golden Age that lead to us giving up Christmas. The article did not depend solely on

the information from Hislop. But it was a significant quote in the overall article. And as recently as 1963, in the much re-

searched book "Babylon the Great has Fallen, God's Kingdom Rules". In the 2nd and 3ird chapter they describe how

Nimrod was more than just a "mighty hunter". But this referred to him becoming an ancient conqueror who experienced

a violent death. And then after his death he was deified. In the third chapter they quite in a footnote part of the information

from Hislop about Semaramis and her supposed role in deifying Nimrod.

  I have done a brief review online of what some of the different websites are saying both about this legend, and the accuracy

of Hislop. Most of them claim he has in general been discredited. This is not the first time I became aware of this. However

part of my questions have to due with how this fits in with Jehovah's overall direction of his people. This is something that al-

ways must be taken into consideration when weighing questions like this. So for me while I don't want to continue to repeat

this information as if it was still fact. I'd like to take the time to see how Hislop came to these conclusions anyway. And more

research on the actual historical Semaramis. I will say this. this story did seem to explain so simply the origin of the Baby-

lomian prostitute. And then how she came to be found in each culture - Canaan - Ashtoreth, Babylon - Ishtar, Egypt - Isis,

Greece - Aphrodite,  Rome - Venus, and then the Roman Catholic Church with its Madonna and Child.

  So at the very least it will cause me to have to reappraise part of my understanding of these mystery religions. and then from

there come the various questions raised about the Knights Templars, the Freemasons, The Illumanati and claims about how

they have behind the scenes manipulated world events to their advantage, and the advantage of the big finaciers. This is all

part and parcel of what the brothers began to expose in the 1920s and 30s. That of Satan's corrupt empire, consisting of corrupt

Big Business, Big Politicians, and Big Religious Leaders. So while this doesn't effect the overall tree as we have portrayed it,

it does affect part of the foundation. Perhaps this gives to you Carlos, a better idea of all of what I was looking at.

 

                                                                                                                                                              Gstorrs46

[GStorrs46]

   I have been doing some further research concerning part of this foundation question concerning this Nimrod and

Semaramis legend. First let me clearly state what the legend is. Nimrod, as the Bible states became a "mighty hunter"

before Jehovah. As has been explained many times in our publications the expression "before" really means in opposition

to Jehovah. He was the first to become a warrior king and as the Bible says: " the beginning of his kingdom came to be

Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From there he went into Assyria and built Ninevah, Rehothbor-Ir,

Calah, and Resen between both Ninevah and Calah. This is the great city. " Gen. 10: 10-12 So clearly, from the Bible

record Nimrod was an empire Builder. And not only that, but the founder of the great cities of Mesopatamia of Ninevah

and Babylon. Clearly, just as today the founders of great cities and nations are remembered with great acclaim ( Alexan-

der the Great, the Caesars, Constantine, Charlemane, various Popes like Gregory the Great, various Kings and Queens

of England, the Founding Fathers of the United States. ) So would have been Nimrod.

   Of how much more we would expect this to be true when we remember Babylon was the site of the first great rebellion

after the Flood, and the building of the famed tower of Babel. ( Gen. 11: 1-9 ) Interestingly this is related after the account

by Nimrod. And of course, the establishment of Babel has already been told as being the work of Nimrod. Then we have

the confusing of the languages and the scattering of the people across the face of the earth. As already been noted, these

Bible accounts form the basis for understanding how false religion was carried to all points of the ancient world, with unique

developments by the individual groups according to their cultures.

  Now for the legend of Semaramis. She is said to have been a beautiful courtesan who Nimrod took as his wife. A fitting prize

for a warrior king ( compare Anthony and Cleopatra ) Other versions claim she was his mother. At any rate she gets pregnant

with his child. He then meets a violent death, some claim at the hand of Shem, who was trying to stem the idolatry he was

introducing into the world. Semaramis now gives birth to her son, who she names Tammuz. She claims this is Nimrod reborn,

and that he has actually now become the Sun God. With this in mind, let's see what part of this may actually have some historical

truth to it.

  In the Insight book, it contains this very interesting information under "Tammuz ".There it notes first about the women in the

temple of Jerusalem weeping for Tammuz in Ezekiel's day. ( Ezek. 8: 1, 3, 14 ) The article goes on to note that Tammuz is called

Dumuzi and is identified as the consort of Innanni ( the Babylonian Ishtar ). It goes on to note Sumarian kings were identified as

being DumuzI. These texts are said to have dated to the 18th century b.c.e. ( 1700 b.c.e. ) So this would place this tradition just

a few hundred years after Nimrod. Further it quotes the 1983 book " Inanni, Queen of heaven and Earth" as saying: " there were

quite a number of "dying gods " in ancient Sumer. But the best known was Dumuzi, the Biblical Tammuz....originally the god

Dumuzi was a mortal Sumerian ruler, whose life and death had made a profound affect on Sumerian thinkers and mythologers."

Note that statement: "Dumuzi was a MORTAL SUMERIAN RULER, WHOSE LIFE AND DEATH HAD A PROFOUND EFFECT

ON SUMERIAN THINKERS AND MYTHOLOGERS. While  not positive proof that this referred to Nimrod, it certainly provides

strong circumstantial evidence that he was the one that was the object of the MYTHOLOGERS creative "mysteries", the "Mysteries

of Babylon". The "Insight article goes on to quote from a 1962 article in the Journal of Semetic Studies: " Dumuzi was originally a

man, a king of Erech....The humanity of Dumuzi is confirmed, moreover, in a mythological passage in which he says to Inanni,

' I will lead you to the house of my god ' this is not the way in which a god would speak, "

    So in summary, does this information presented in the Insight book absolutely confirm the earlier claims made by Alexander

Hislop in his book, "The Two Babylons  " No, that would be going too far with the evidence. What it does show is part of the myth

surrounding Tammuz appears have historical fact in that he was made a god by deifying a king of ancient Sumeria. And according

to the "Journal of Semantic Studies", he was a "king of Erech." We can't help but note that Nimrod was the original builder of

Erech. and  Tammuz or Dumuzi was a king, What of his consort Inanni or Ishtar, who became the original Babylonian prostitute ?

Could she have actually have been the famed and controversial Semaramis ? What of the fact the historical Semaramis lived 

about 800 b.c.e. Is it possible, just as in other dynasties, she took her name, or was named after an earlier Semaramis ? At this

point in my research this is just conjecture. But stranger things have proved to be true. However, this information appears to

confirm in general the picture the FDS has depicted as to the origin of the "Mysteries of Babylon". " On her forehead was written

a name, a mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes, and the disgusting tings of the earth. "(  Rev. 17: 5 ) Comments

anyone ?

 

                                                                                                                                                                                   GStorrs46

[Sheila]

Shawn,

 

   Is this reporter a brother, or just an insightful journalist ? At any rate his logic and presentation are impeccable. Thanks

for sharing it.

 

                                                                                                                                                           GStorrs46

Brother Michael, I've been following William Wrights' articles online for a couple of years now.  He comes across as a lovely brother, and I should imagine, a very understanding and supportive elder in his congregation.   He recently spent some time in hospital and was humbled by the number of messages etc he received from his readers.     You can go back into the Cleveland Daily Banner archives and read his older articles, always very interesting, never biased, even quotes from bibles other than our own, and I have no doubt his articles help open doors when our brothers and sisters call.  

[carlos]

However part of my questions have to due with how this fits in with Jehovah's overall direction of his people. This is something that always must be taken into consideration when weighing questions like this. So for me while I don't want to continue to repeat this information as if it was still fact. I'd like to take the time to see how Hislop came to these conclusions anyway. And more research on the actual historical Semaramis. I will say this. this story did seem to explain so simply the origin of the Babylomian prostitute. And then how she came to be found in each culture - Canaan - Ashtoreth, Babylon - Ishtar, Egypt - Isis,

Greece - Aphrodite,  Rome - Venus, and then the Roman Catholic Church with its Madonna and Child.

 

Thank you Michael for your detailed explanations. I don't think Jehovah's guidance of his people has anything to do with the veracity of a particular source. Jehovah's direction is observed in the fact that Bible Students understood that Christmas was pagan and stopped celebrating it.

 

The Slave has always tried to keep up to day with current science, but a quotation from a scientific work is only as good as the source itself. For example, our publications often quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and when they do they are using the most reliable source available. If afterwards the contents of that quoted article in the encyclopedia are modified due to a better understanding or to new findings, that doesn't mean that Jehovah was not guiding his people, only that we have limited knowledge.

 

Regarding how well the story of Semiramis explained some false teachings, that may be true, but it's not a proof in itself. The explanation of the seven 7000-year creative days leading to the Great Jubilee in year 49000 was as amazingly beautiful and elegant and fitting as it was false.

 

So at the very least it will cause me to have to reappraise part of my understanding of these mystery religions. and then from there come the various questions raised about the Knights Templars, the Freemasons, The Illumanati and claims about how they have behind the scenes manipulated world events to their advantage, and the advantage of the big finaciers. This is all part and parcel of what the brothers began to expose in the 1920s and 30s. That of Satan's corrupt empire, consisting of corrupt Big Business, Big Politicians, and Big Religious Leaders. So while this doesn't effect the overall tree as we have portrayed it, it does affect part of the foundation. Perhaps this gives to you Carlos, a better idea of all of what I was looking at.

 

I confess I haven't read those publications from the 20s and 30s . But I do know our publications haven't dealt with the Illuminati, the Knight Templars or any other secret societies for many many decades. Of course it's up to everyone to believe or not in those conspiration theories, but nobody can say they are taught by the Slave. On the other hand, Satan's wordly empire being based on politics, religion and business is a scriptural teaching so that hasn't changed.

 

I have been doing some further research concerning part of this foundation question concerning this Nimrod and Semaramis legend. First let me clearly state what the legend is. [...]

OK, let's separate facts from speculation. We do know for certain:

 

- Nimrod was a powerful hunter in opposition to Jehovah.

- He was the first man known to be king and built an empire that included several cities, Babel among them.

 

We can reasonably speculate that since he was king of Babel, he may have been the instigator of the building of the tower of Babel. This would fit well with the few information we have about him, but we can't be certain.

 

Everything else than can be said about Nimrod is pure speculation. Could he have been deified? Quite possibly. Is there a connection between Nimrod and the Babylonian god Marduk? There might be one. Since Marduk was the chief god in the territories where Nimrod ruled, and since there's some similitude between the names niMRoD and MaRDuk (notice MRD, the root meaning "rebellion" in Semite languages), a case could be made. But we don't know this for certain, it's just a possibility. Is there a connection between Nimrod and Tammuz, Baal, Jupiter or whoever? Nobody knows and nothing can be proved.

 

Now for the legend of Semaramis. She is said to have been a beautiful courtesan who Nimrod took as his wife. A fitting prize for a warrior king ( compare Anthony and Cleopatra ) Other versions claim she was his mother. At any rate she gets pregnant with his child. He then meets a violent death, some claim at the hand of Shem, who was trying to stem the idolatry he was introducing into the world. Semaramis now gives birth to her son, who she names Tammuz. She claims this is Nimrod reborn, and that he has actually now become the Sun God. With this in mind, let's see what part of this may actually have some historical

truth to it.

 

That's exactly my point! What is the source for those legends? Do we have some hystorical source for them, or are they just recent inventions? There is no pre-Christian source linking Semiramis to Nimrod. Flavius Josephus says Semiramis was the wife of Ninus, the founder of Asshur, and that she succeeded him on the throne. No Nimrod. Only in the 4th century, the Clementine Recognitions, a "Christian" compendium of contradicting rumours and legends, identify for the first time Ninus with the Biblical Nimrod. In subsequent centuries more and more conflicting details are added to the legend: that she was a prostitute, that she was Nimrod's mother, that she was his wife, that she killed Nimrod, that she didn't kill him, that she buried Nimrod under a fir tree and worshipped the tree, that she gave birth to a baby after Nimrod was dead, that she claimed that she was a virgin mother (hard to believe if she was a prostitute), that the child was Tammuz... All those stories were made up and developed by Christendom theologians thousands of years after the facts. Now we may cherrypick the ones that seem to support our thesis and discard the rest, as Alexander Hislop did. But that is wishful reasoning, if such term exists. Or we may discard them all as being just invented stories. That's my position, and apparently the current position of the Slave.

 

So is the Sumerian god Tammuz or Dumuzi an old deified king? Maybe. Is that king Nimrod? Who knows! Notice how carefully the Slave avoids including Nimrod in that Insight article. Was his wife Astarte the same as Semiramis, Ninus' wife? Anything anybody can say is pure speculation. Isn't it quite strange that she was Nimrod's wife but at the same time a prostitute? Wouldn't that be a humilation for her husband? Besides, didn't we agree that Nimrod was deified as Marduk? So he was Marduk, but was also Dumuzi, and also Baal? Either all gods of ancient times were Nimrod, or speculation is leading us to silly conclusions.

 

Speculating is funny, but then using those conjectures to base our teachings, or to make such bold accusations as Alexander Hislop makes in his works, is simply lacking common sense.

[Shawnster]

 

 

We can reasonably speculate that since he was king of Babel, he may have been the instigator of the building of the tower of Babel. This would fit well with the few information we have about him, but we can't be certain.

 

Why can we conclude he was instrumental in building the Tower of Babel simply because he was the first king of Babylon?  We would need to ascertain if Nimrod was still alive when the tower was being built.  Perhaps he had died and this tower was his legacy?  Perhaps it was also to be a memorial to their first fallen king?

 

I'm just spitballing and I'm being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.  Still, you said we're separating fact from speculation.  The Bible does not indicate Nimrod was directly responsible for the Tower.  That is speculation.  It's probably correct, but it's still speculation.

 

Edit.  I see you already stated this in your comment " This would fit well with the few information we have about him, but we can't be certain." 

 

I should work on my reading comprehension.  LOL.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Shawnster

[Shawnster]

 

Everything else than can be said about Nimrod is pure speculation. Could he have been deified? Quite possibly. Is there a connection between Nimrod and the Babylonian god Marduk? There might be one. Since Marduk was the chief god in the territories where Nimrod ruled, and since there's some similitude between the names niMRoD and MaRDuk (notice MRD, the root meaning "rebellion" in Semite languages), a case could be made. But we don't know this for certain, it's just a possibility. Is there a connection between Nimrod and Tammuz, Baal, Jupiter or whoever? Nobody knows and nothing can be proved.

 

Also keep in mind the commonality of making the king synonymous with a god.  Pharaoh was king of Egypt and a god.  Caesar was king and a deity of sorts.  Are their any other ancient cultures that merged the king with a god?